Patna High Court
Sushant RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that bail must be granted to the petitioner due to the absence of prima facie evidence linking him to the alleged theft.
Summary
The petitioner, Sushant Raj, was implicated in a case of alleged theft of transformer oil, but his name does not appear in the FIR. Villagers identified one co‑accused, Dilkhush Kumar, and gave only vague, uncorroborated statements that the petitioner was present, with no seized oil or direct evidence linking him to the crime. The prosecution argued that the petitioner’s name emerged during investigation, while the defence emphasized his clean antecedents and the absence of any material possession. The court examined the evidentiary record, noting the lack of prima facie material to sustain a denial of bail. Relying on Sections 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and 482(2) of the BNSS, the court directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties. The order effectively granted bail pending further trial in the underlying case.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, who is not named in the FIR, can be lawfully detained without sufficient evidence.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence and villagers’ statements constitute a prima facie case to deny bail.
- Whether the court may invoke Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS to grant bail in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 303(2)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Cr.P.C. — s. 438(2)
- Electricity Act — s. 136
Subjects
- bail
- prima facie evidence
- theft of transformer oil
- Electricity Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- Section 482
- Section 303(2)
- Section 136
- evidentiary insufficiency
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27188 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2026 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Sushant Raj S/o Sanjeev Kumar R/o Village - Murbala, South, balam Gadhia,
Ward No. 13, P.S - Madhepura, District - Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Junior Engineer, North Bihar Power Distribution Company Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pooja Prasad, Adv
: Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Adv
: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vaibhava Veer Shanker, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case
No.03 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 303(2) of the BNS and Section 136 of the Electricity Act.
3. As per FIR, two persons were found running after
committing theft of transformer oil through motorcycle, who were
apprehended by villagers, who took their photographs and let
them go due to fear. One of them was identified as Dilkhush
Kumar, petitioner was not named in the FIR.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that theft of transformer oil as alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27188 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
was not seen in possession of petitioner including co-accused,
while they were stopped for a while by villagers. It is submitted
that several co-villagers gathered over there, who identified one
of the person in the photograph as Dilkhush Kumar, but none of
the villagers identified this petitioner and during the course of
investigation it was disclosed by some unknown villagers that this
petitioner was the same person, who was with Dilkhush Kumar, in
committing theft. While concluding argument, it is submitted that
above named petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for
O.P. No. 2 namely Junior Engineer, North Bihar Power
Distribution Company Patna, while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that name of this petitioner was disclosed by villagers
during the investigation, but conceded that the petitioner was
implicated on the basis of photographs taken by the villagers and
no stolen transformer oil was recovered, but conceded that no
villagers said to informant, who is the Junior Engineer that the
petitioner was found in possession of transformer oil when they
were stopped by villagers.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of fact as villagers prima-facie failed to disclose
whether petitioner was with stolen transformer oil, while they
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27188 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
were stopped immediately after the occurrence creating a prima-
facie doubt qua allegation, accordingly petitioner above-named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within
a period of four weeks, is directed to be released on bail,
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned CJM, Madhepura/concerned Court, where the case is
pending in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No.03 of 2026,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C/ Section 482(2) of BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…